Tweet
ARMENIANS SHOULD DEMAND THAT RESULTS OF WAR ARE SET DOWN
Nano Arghutyan
Lragir.am
18:06:57 - 10/11/2008
Perhaps the most popular word in the South Caucasus is status-quo. In
addition, recently it has been used with a negative shade rather. It is
bad that there is a status quo in the region, it is necessary to get
over it, even if the price is war and territorial concessions. Word
pierces stone, and already it is being discussed at the top level
whether the existing situation should be preserved, or the status
quo should be violated.
What is more, a survey was conducted among experts in Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Karabakh on the issue of the status quo, which was
initiated by the International Alert. One may only guess the purpose
of this. It is possible that the organization wanted to get the
answer of the publics of the three countries, which were expected to
utter angrily that the status quo is bad, and it should be changed
immediately. And in that case the mediators would be able to take
out Madrid or whatever principles from their pockets and announce
that it was the only way out of the status quo.
Anyway, according to the results of surveys like the one presented in
Brussels by the heads of organizations who conducted it, in Armenia,
especially in Karabakh, the status quo is considered as the only way of
maintaining stability in the region. The negative aspects of the status
quo were also mentioned: economic isolation, and even the "alibi"
of the local governments not to carry out economic reforms. However,
compared with the fact that the status quo guarantees the right of
people to live, it was not considered that important. In Azerbaijan
they also think that this situation cannot last forever.
Where did the thesis that the current status quo should be overcome
appear from? It is obvious that it appeared not out of the interests
of the Armenian people and was artificially injected from the
outside. Besides, it is obvious that it was injected by those whom
the current status quo does not favor. By accepting the status quo
Baku must either accept the current status quo or continue efforts
to restore the situation of 1988. Although the second is much more
difficult because the political reality has changed, Baku is trying to
squeeze everything out of the situation which is not favorable for it.
Since the time of Heidar Aliyev the Azerbaijani government has
invented a game and imposed it on the Armenians. They splashed
into the political sphere the thesis that the current status quo
cannot last long, it may cause ignition of military actions and
economic stagnation, and offered their conditions for getting
over the status quo. Naturally, those conditions did not involve
setting down politically the existing reality, as the political logic
demanded. Baku has set forward maximal requirements, realizing that
the Armenian side possesses all the trump cards, and they will have
to give something. But if the Armenians are involved in a "bazaar",
it is always possible to get a bargain.
The Armenians easily yielded. They accepted the rules of the game with
pleasure, and instead of insisting on political formulation of the
results of the war they started bargaining. And whatever the result
of the "bargain" is, the Armenians will lose because they will lose
part of what belongs to them now.
What will the Armenians lose if they announce to reject the rules
of the game dictated by the beaten foe? Hardly anyone can answer
this question.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Nano Arghutyan
Lragir.am
18:06:57 - 10/11/2008
Perhaps the most popular word in the South Caucasus is status-quo. In
addition, recently it has been used with a negative shade rather. It is
bad that there is a status quo in the region, it is necessary to get
over it, even if the price is war and territorial concessions. Word
pierces stone, and already it is being discussed at the top level
whether the existing situation should be preserved, or the status
quo should be violated.
What is more, a survey was conducted among experts in Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Karabakh on the issue of the status quo, which was
initiated by the International Alert. One may only guess the purpose
of this. It is possible that the organization wanted to get the
answer of the publics of the three countries, which were expected to
utter angrily that the status quo is bad, and it should be changed
immediately. And in that case the mediators would be able to take
out Madrid or whatever principles from their pockets and announce
that it was the only way out of the status quo.
Anyway, according to the results of surveys like the one presented in
Brussels by the heads of organizations who conducted it, in Armenia,
especially in Karabakh, the status quo is considered as the only way of
maintaining stability in the region. The negative aspects of the status
quo were also mentioned: economic isolation, and even the "alibi"
of the local governments not to carry out economic reforms. However,
compared with the fact that the status quo guarantees the right of
people to live, it was not considered that important. In Azerbaijan
they also think that this situation cannot last forever.
Where did the thesis that the current status quo should be overcome
appear from? It is obvious that it appeared not out of the interests
of the Armenian people and was artificially injected from the
outside. Besides, it is obvious that it was injected by those whom
the current status quo does not favor. By accepting the status quo
Baku must either accept the current status quo or continue efforts
to restore the situation of 1988. Although the second is much more
difficult because the political reality has changed, Baku is trying to
squeeze everything out of the situation which is not favorable for it.
Since the time of Heidar Aliyev the Azerbaijani government has
invented a game and imposed it on the Armenians. They splashed
into the political sphere the thesis that the current status quo
cannot last long, it may cause ignition of military actions and
economic stagnation, and offered their conditions for getting
over the status quo. Naturally, those conditions did not involve
setting down politically the existing reality, as the political logic
demanded. Baku has set forward maximal requirements, realizing that
the Armenian side possesses all the trump cards, and they will have
to give something. But if the Armenians are involved in a "bazaar",
it is always possible to get a bargain.
The Armenians easily yielded. They accepted the rules of the game with
pleasure, and instead of insisting on political formulation of the
results of the war they started bargaining. And whatever the result
of the "bargain" is, the Armenians will lose because they will lose
part of what belongs to them now.
What will the Armenians lose if they announce to reject the rules
of the game dictated by the beaten foe? Hardly anyone can answer
this question.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress